Tuesday, the 7th December, 1948

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 664. Professor K. T.Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (3) of article 22, for the words"outside its working hours" the following be substituted:

`maintained by that community from its own fundsprovided that no educational institutions, nor any educationor training imparted therein shall be recognised unless itprovides instruction or training in courses laid down forpublic instruction in the regular system of education for the country and complies in all other respects with methods,standards, equipment and other requirements of the nationalsystem of education.'"

Sir, the whole group of clauses lays down a principleof "no religious instruction in public educationalinstitutions" and then seeks, as it seems to be the case,throughout this Chapter to find holes and crevices by whichit can creep in like a thief in the dark, and undo the verybasis and foundation of the structure we are seeking to erect.

I am free to confess that, apart from the variety ofexceptions, exemptions or limitations, all sought to beimposed by this article upon its basic principle,--there isthe difficulty of ambiguity of expression, the lack ofclarity or insufficiency in the terms used, which makes it very difficult to devisean amendment, which might be effective in substance as wellas in form, and bring out the idea more clearly andexpressly than the draftsman seems to have done.

I mention one instance of ambiguity in terms, which,unfortunately, occurs also in the amendment which I amproposing, though there is, I think, no ambiguity in theterm used in my amendment containing the expression `Statefunds'. The term fund, as I have understood it, means incommon parlance, and I venture to submit, even in legaltechnical terminology, not revenue or recurring income. Thatterm means something static, something accumulated andexisting, something that is what the lawyers would call`corpus', even if they understand the Latin term in theLatin sense, `Revenue' is something different.

Now take the clause about Institutions maintained fromState funds. I for one find it very difficult to understandwhat `funds' are meant here as intended by the draftsman for the maintenance of institutions. I am, of course, notanxious to read Bhagvat before buffaloes. But I must saythat in trying to understand the meaning of this article, Ifeel it necessary to at least expose my own difficulties andhandicaps in understanding precisely the terminology used,and seek clarification from those who have the handling, themaking, and drafting of this Constitution in their hands.

I make no secret of the fact that I am against publiceducational institutions being used for providing ReligiousInstruction in this country, or any country, but in thiscountry particularly, because of the variety of sects anddenominations. They are, of course, called each a religion;but they very often forget the basic truth of all religon,and exalt each its own particular brand or variety of it, asany advertizer in the market lauds his own wares. But evenassuming that that is permissible, outside office hours soto say, outside the normal school hours, care must at leastbe taken that that is not done at the expense of the normaleducation, and all the requirements of that education andtraining, in the shape of building, staff, equipment,standards, methods etc.

Now, it is by no means clear, at least in this clause(3), as it stands, that even if instruction is permitted orsuffered to be provided outside the normal hours, whetherthat may be done at the expense of the ordinary curriculum.That will have to be, I take it, enforced in every school,whether maintained by public funds, or not. I insist,therefore, in this Amendment, that whoever wishes to providesuch instruction, whatever community desires to provide suchinstruction, may do so, if you so agree, by its own funds.But they must be sufficient to meet the full cost; and in the full

sense of the term, it must be after the schoolhours, in such a manner that there is no prejudicewhatsoever of the ordinary curriculum prescribed standardsof attainment, methods of instruction, equipment, etc.

This, in my opinion, is liable very seriously to besacrificed and endangered if you do not introduce some suchsafeguard as I am seeking to make by my amendment. Our onlyweapon is that, if any community so desires to insist uponthe pre-eminence if not exclusive importance being given toreligious instruction, and is prepared to spend moniesthereafter, let it do so. But the State should certainly notrecognise any education given in such an institution, and intraining equipment provided by that institution, unless itconforms to the public standards, and public requirements ofsuch education and training being given up to a prescribed degree.

I have some experience of educational institutionstrying to ignore, in one respect or another, one or all of these requirements. Those who have had experience ofinspecting these institutions and reporting upon them to theappropriate author ities will realize what I mean when I saythat the greatest difficulty lies in keeping these institutions up to a givenmark, and to see from time to time that these standards aremaintained.

In countries where a common standard prevails, thisdifficulty also exists. But in countries where there areconflicting ideals, namely secular education, materialconsiderations in professional training and technicaltraining, and at the same time there is, so to say, thedemand of specialized religious instruction, I am afraid oneor the other of these may suffer in order that the former orthe latter may succeed. I feel it is imperative to requirethat not only shall all the funds for the provision of suchinstruction be supplied by the community which desired toprovide it, but in addition, on pain of its education beingnot recognized, on pain of its degrees, diplomas and certificates not being accepted as sufficient qualificationfor its alumni when they seek any post or office, they shallsee to it that the standards, equipment, buildings, staff and other requirements of the national system of education,and its code of regulations are fully complied with. If that is done, then probably the great evil which I find in theprovision of religious instruction in a country like thiswould be mitigated, if not eliminated altogether.

(Amendment No. 665 was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: The clause is now open for generaldiscussion.

Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, while supporting this article, there are oneor two points on which I should like some elucidation. Prof.K. T. Shah has brought forward a point which really needs to be cleared up. Part (1) of this article says: "No religiousinstruction shall be provided in any educational institutionwholly maintained out of state funds". There is likelihoodof this being mis interpreted in the future, so as to nullifyits very object. As he has pointed out even if a smalldonation is paid to a public school, it can be held thatsuch a school is not wholly maintained out of State funds,and therefore denominational religious instruction may begiven. I hope that when Dr. Ambedkar speaks, he will clearup this point because it is a very important one. If suchinterpretation can be given then it is necessary to have safeguards against it.

In this country we have seen the exploitation, and theprostitution of what we call religion and we have seen toour bitter cost what is done in the name of denominationalreligion. It has not only led to the dis-memberment anddivision of our country, but it has not also led to theworst horrors that could be perpetrated in the name ofreligion. Now, when we are building for the future, we must build in such a manner that we are able to do so untrammelled by the legacy of the past. The only real way inwhich this could be done is to see that the next generationare educated in such a manner that they are not actuated bymotives that divide and dis integrate man from

man, but thatthe religion of humanity is much greater to them thanreligious dissensions on a denominational religious basis.If that is to be so, we must be very careful, now that weare building up the Constitution for the future, that thereshall not be in the fundamental rights any kind of confusionas to the kind of instruction that is to be given at leastin those institution that are maintained out of publicfunds. If we use this word "wholly", there is likely to bethis confusion that has been already pointed out and I wouldlike to hear from Dr. Ambedkar if it is possible for himeither to accept this amendment or at least to assure theHouse that no such interpretation will be possible in the future.

I would again urge that he should accept in particularthe amendment for the deletion of clause (3) which has beenmoved by Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor, because as he has pointedout there is no doubt that if this clause remains, there islikelihood that in a certain area where there may be a small number of schools or only one school, a fight between the variousdenominations as to which particular type of religiousinstruction should be given out of school hours may ensue.Therefore, it is much better that clause (3) be deleted from this article.

I am sure that all those in this House and the countryoutside will agree with me that above all things, it isnecessary that the instruction that is given to the citizensof the future shall be such that the idea of a Secular Statein which all citizens are equal comes into being, and theprovision for this adopted in our Constitution becomes aliving reality. This can only be done if education which isthe very basis on which we build our Society is so impartedto the young that they do not learn to realise thedistinctions which separate man and man, but rather to learnthat the underflying unity of humanity is more fundamentaland the basis of religion to which they must adhere.

Shri V. I. Muniswami Pillai: (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, when we are on the very important workof evolving a secular State for this country, I feel thesecond clause in article 22 is a very important one and I welcome it.

Sir, it will be in the knowledge of this sovereign bodythat certain institutions in the past, due to the aid thatwas given by the former Government, under the garb ofimparting education to the masses, have taken a differentstand. This has led to masses of the unfortunate communitiesembracing a religion that was not their own. This articlemakes it clear that any educational institution receivingaid from the State should not indulge in matters ofreligious education. This mostly helps those unfortunatecommunities that have fallen a prey in this respect.

Sir, further it goes to say that in the case of aminor, unless the parent has given his consent, he shouldnot be given religious instruction or required to attend any religious worship. I feel, Sir, it is not always possible for the parents to give this consent and the institutionsthat are working in the rural areas and outskirts of townswill not get the genuine consent of the parents in thisrespect. This important duty of seeing whether the consentgiven is genuine and true, falls upon the local author itieswho will have to verify and create agencies so that thestudents or pupils that are attending any institutions ofcertain denominations are not converted to other religions.This is my emphatic plea and I am hopeful that the localGovernment will take care about what is said about consent.I entirely welcome the provisions of this article 22 of the Constitution.

Shri V. S. Sarwate: [United States of Gwalior-Indore-Malwa (Madhya Bharat]; Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I rise tosupport this article as it stands except clause (3). As Isee it, I think article 20, 21 and 22 are to be readtogether. Certain propositions evolve out of them. The firstis that the State is secular and it shall not impart anyreligious education in schools maintained by itself.Further, clause (1) of article 22 lays down that the Stateshall not give any religious

instruction in such schools asare entirely maintained out of State funds and these shallnot be allowed to give religious education. This is thefirst proposition. But, it does not follow that the Stateeither bans religion or despises it. Its attitude isperfectly neutral. Article 20 allows any religiousdenomination to have its own schools. As I read article 21,I understand it to mean that if any particular communitywants to tax itself for the purpose of imparting religiouseducation, the Government would help it by undertaking tocollect such a tax. What is done by article 21 is this: thatthe State will not force anybody to pay such a tax. But, itmay collect and pay over to such communities, if thecommunities agree to pay a particular tax for the purpose ofimparting religious education. As I see from the word`wholly' I do think that if the State wants to partially aidany school which is imparting religious instructions, it is enabled to do soand I think it is right. If any community does maintain aschool and imparts particular religious education and itdeserves help from the State, the State should be in aposition to give such aid. Therefore, the word `wholly' isnecessary and I oppose the other amendment which has beenmoved inserting the words `or partly'. One need not beobsessed by what happened in the past. I know and I haveread in schools and colleges where certain religiouseducation was imparted. I am grateful for the teachingswhich I received there but there were certain objectionablefeatures. In one educational institution there was areligious instruction imparted in the first hour and if wedid not attend in that hour, we were marked absent for therest of the periods. In another college where I learnt, itwas necessary that we attended a religious worship and if wedid not attend it, we were subjected to certain fines. Thesewere objectionable features and these are to be removed.They are removed by clause (2). Nobody is required to attendsuch religious worship or to attend such classes wherereligious education is given. But it does not prohibit theState from giving aid to such institutions; what is onlymeant is nobody against his will will be required or forcedand compelled to receive such education or attend suchreligious worship, and I think this is a very salutaryprovision and also the permission which is given to theState to aid such institutions is also necessary. OtherwiseI believe certain very good institutions in the country would suffer.

Kazi Syed Karimuddin: Mr. President, Sir, in my opinionthe provisions of article 22 except clause (3) are verysalutary and I really do not understand how these provisionshave been opposed by Mr. Ismail from Madras. In the state ofthings as they stand today, in my opinion, it is much betterfor the minor ities to avoid religious controversies,conflicts and religious dogmas to be taught in the schoolsand we have seen in the past, as several speakers the otherday have said, that in Missionary schools people werepersuaded to have conversion form one faith to the otherbecause of the undue influence or monetary gams. Now in a secular State, where religion will be a personal matter, mysubmission is that in educational institutions whollymanaged or wholly aided by the Government or State,religious education should not be provided. It is said, Sir,that unless religious education is given in the schoolsfinanced by the State it would not be possible for theminor ities to be educated in their religion. My submissionis that if the8 communities want that their children shouldbe educated or should be given religious education, then itwill be their duty to educate their children in Patasalas orschools. The amendment moved by Professor Shah in my opinioncannot be acceptable at the present stage. His amendment isthat no religious instruction should be provided by theState in any educational institution wholly or partlymaintained out of public funds. Today as things stand inIndia there is Aligarh University, there is BanarasUniversity and there are several colleges run by theChristian Missionaries

which are aided by the Government. Ifhis amendment is accepted today there will be hundreds andthousands of institutions which will be closed downimmediately. Let us proceed very cautiously. For that theprovision in clause (2) is very salutary. In aided schoolsor institutions in which there will be no compulsion on thestudents to take a particular religious education. I thinkthe opposite point of view can be partially met by clause(2). It has also been stated that the word `educational'should be removed from clause (1) and it is stated thatRadios may be used to propagate and teach a particularreligion. This is a State which has been declared to besecular a particular religion. This is a State which hasbeen declared to be secular and if a secular State decidesto propagate a particular religion throught radios, it willnot be worth the name that it is a secular State. In myopinion it is more a question administrative policy and the word`educational' need not be taken away from clause (1).

Sir, it has been stated that religious education shouldbe given at home. I also oppose this. In aided schools runby communities religious education can be given and the amendment of Mr. Tajamul Husain cannot be accepted thatreligious education should be given at home. I contemplate aposition that if parents are atheists-for instance Mr.Tajamul Husain by another amendment demands that the peopleshould have no name and they should not have any particulardress-in that case, there will be no religious education in their houses; and if people are only to be known by numbersand not by names, then it will be very difficult for them to be educated or instructed in religious theology. Thereforemy submission is that article 22 as it stands is not to thedisadvantage or detriment of the minor ities.

But I really object to clause (3). What has been givenin clauses (1) and (2) has been taken away in clause (3). Itsays-

"Nothing in this article shall prevent any community ordenomination from providing religious instruction for pupilsof that community or denomination in an educationalinstitution outside its working hours."

But who would be responsible for imparting the religiouseducation in such institutions? Any outside agencies whowould be giving religious instructions to the boys may notbe acceptable to the author ities and moreover much mischiefwill be done if this religious education is given in outsidehours by people who are irresponsible and by people who willbe recklessly teaching boys that may be to the detriment of the nation. Therefore I support article 22 as it stands with the deletion of clause (3).

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, I support thearticle as it stands without clause (3). Instead ofProfessor Saksena's amendment, I would urge that the Housemay accept amendment No. 661. Mr. Saksena's amendmentoriginally as it stands is that both clauses (1) and (3) ofthis article may be omitted but when moving the amendment hegave up the portion relating to clause (1) and pressed hisamendment in regard to clause (3). Instead of that amendmentNo. 661 relating exclusively to the deletion of clause (3)may kindly be accepted. Sir, in supporting this clause in this article, I am very much pained that religiousinstruction is not to be taught in any school in a countrywhich is full of religion. Inside our schools, we may refuseto teach religion to the children. But outside the schoolswe cannot forget our denominations. Religion, according tome, is the basic foundation of any society; all morality,and all good principles have to be traced to religion. Butsituated as we are, it is unfortunate that we are not ableto come to any arrangement regarding the teaching ofreligion to our children in our schools.

Sir, there are two sets of amendments moved regardingthis article. One requires that various provisions for theteaching of religion in the schools must be made for all thechildren. Another set of amendments wants that the stringentprovisions of today against the teaching of religion shouldbe made even tighter, and that even in cases

whereeducational institutions are not exclusively run by theState and where the State does not maintain the institutionwholly, no religious instructions should be imparted, andthat even in institutions which are partly aided by theState, or are recognised by the State, religion ought not to be taught. That is another set of amendments. I, Sir, feelthat neither the one nor the other set is possible in thecircumstances in which we are situated today. We are pledgedto make the State a secular one. I do not, by the word`secular', mean that we do not believe in any religion, andthat we have nothing to do with it in our day-to-day life.It only means that the State or the Government cannot aI done religion or give preference to one religion as against another. Therefore it is obliged to be absolutely secular in character, not thatit has lost faith in all religions. Not even members incharge of the Government have lost faith in religion. I amsure none of us is to that extent an iconoclast or non-believer. We all do believe in some religion or other,including those who have spoken and taken part in thedeliberations about this article in the Constitution. But it is regrettable that we have not been able to evolve auniversal religion, a religion where the religions practicesneed not cloud the issues. We all believe in the existenceof one God, in prayer, in meditation and so on. We allbelieve in the ultimate surrender to Him and that bysacrifice and service alone can we hope to realise Godhead.These are common to all religions. The Bhagavat Gita laysdown that by sacrifice and service we have to see Godhead inhumanity, that service to humanity is the essence of God. I will not go into all the details; suffice it to say that Iregret that in the circumstances in which we are, we are notable to teach religion to our children. If we introduce theteaching of one religion, even if there is only one boybelonging to another religion in that school, we have tomake provision for the teaching of his religion also. And weknow very well that even under one religion there are sectsand subsects. There are Hindus of various sects. And thenthere is Jainism, Buddism, Christianity, and there are theMuslims, the Parsis and so on. Therefore it is not possible,it is physically impossible for the State to make provisionsfor the teaching of all the religions. The only thing, underthe circumstances that we can do is to avoid religiousinstructions in State-aided schools. If a small contributionis made by some agency and religious instruction isprovided, it will all the same, be controlled by the localauthor ity, and if the teaching is rabid, and if hatred isbeing taught in the school, certainly the grant can bewithheld and other measures adopted to stop that kind ofthing. It is not obligatory upon the State to give itsgrants irrespective of the way in which the educationalinstitution is being run. So we need not think thatreligious instruction will be given in an institution wherethe major portion is contributed by the State and a smallcontribution-may be a farthing-is contributed by some otheragency. We need not make it part and parcel of the Constitution here. I am sure no government would contribute99 per cent and allow an educational institution to impartreligious education because I percent comes from some othersource. Therefore, we need not accept either the one set of amendment or the other set, but confine ourselves to amendment No. 661 and amendment No. 645.

Mr. Vice-President: Much as I would like to accommodateother members, for whose opinions I have great respect, Ifind we have already had a number of speakers. Twelveamendments have to be put to vote. Nine amendments have beenmoved and I think six speakers have already spoken. I feelthis article has been discussed sufficiently. I now call onDr. Ambedkar to speak.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General):Sir, I want to get one or two points cleared. I am not goingto make a speech. I want only to get one or two pointsexplained.

Mr. Vice-President: I have already given my ruling.

Icannot allow any further speeches, especially as you and Ibelong to the same Province.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Belonging to the sameprovince has nothing to do with this. I only wanted to haveclarification on one point.

Mr. Vice-President: My decision is final, Panditji. Dr.Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,Sir, out of the amendments that have been moved, I canpersuade myself to accept only

amendment No. 661 moved by Mr. Kapoor to omit sub-clause (3)from the article, and I am sorry that I cannot accept theother amendments.

It is perhaps, desirable, in view of the multiplicityof views that have been expressed on the floor of the Houseto explain at some length as to what this article proposesto do. Taking the various amendments that have been moved,it is clear that there are three different points of view.There is one point of view which is represented by my friendMr. Ismail who comes from Madras. In his opinion, thereought to be no bar for religious instruction being given.The only limitation which he advocates is that nobody shouldbe compelled to attend them. If I have understood himcorrectly, that is the view he stands for. We have anotherview which is represented by my friend Mr. Man and Mr.Tajamul Husain. According to them, there ought to be noreligious instruction at all, not even in institutions which are educational. Then there is the third point of view andit has been expressed by Prof. K. T. Shah, who says that notonly no religious instruction should be permitted ininstitutions which are wholly maintained out of State funds,but no religious instruction should be permitted even ineducational institutions which are partly maintained out ofState funds.

Now, I take the liberty of saying that the draft as itstands, strikes the mean, which I hope will be acceptable to the House. There are three reasons, in my judgment, whichmilitate against the acceptance of the view advocated by myfriend Mr. Ismail, namely that there ought to be no ban onreligious instructions, rather that religious instructionsshould be provided; and I shall state those reasons verybriefly.

The first reason is this. We have accepted theproposition which is embodied in article 21, that publicfunds raised by taxes shall not be utilised for the benefitof any particular community. For instance, if we permittedany particular religious instruction, say, if a schoolestablished by a District or Local Board gives religiousinstruction, on the ground that the major ity of the studentsstudying in that school are Hindus, the effect would be thatsuch action would militate against the provisions containedin article 21. The District Board would be making a levy onevery person residing within the area of that DistrictBoard. It would have a general tax and if religiousinstruction given in the District or Local Board wasconfined to the children of the major ity community, it wouldbe an abuse of article 21, because the Muslim communitychildren or the children of any other community who do notcare to attend these religious instructions given in theschools would be none-the-less compelled by the action of the District Local Board to contribute to the District LocalBoard funds.

The second difficulty is much more real than the first,namely the multiplicity of religious we have in thiscountry. For instance, take a city like Bombay whichcontains a hetrogeneous population believing in differentcreeds. Suppose, for instance, there was a school in theCity of Bombay maintained by the Municipality. Obviously,such a school would contain children of the Hindus believingin the Hindu religion, there will be pupils belonging to theChristian community, Zoroastrian community, or to the Jewishcommunity. If one went further, and I think it would bedesirable to go further than this, the Hindus again would bedivided into several varieties: there would be the SanataniHindus, Vedic Hindus believing in the Vedic religion, therewould be the Buddhists, there would be the Jains--evenamongst Hindus there would be the Shivites, there would bethe

Vaishnavites, Is the educational institution to berequired to treat all these children on a footing ofequality and to provide religious instruction in all thedenominations? It seems to me that to assign such a task to the State would be to ask it to do the impossible.

The third thing which I would like to mention in thisconnection is that unfortunately the religions which prevailin this country are not merely non-social; so far as theirmutual relations are concerned, they are anti-social, onereligion claiming that its teachings constitute the onlyright path for salvation, that all other religions arewrong. The Muslims believe that anyone who does not believein the dogma of Islam is a kafir not entitled to brotherlytreatment with the Muslims. The Christians have a similarbelief. In view of this, it seems to me that we should beconsiderably disturbing the peaceful atmosphere of aninstitution if these controversies with regard to thetruthful character of any particular religion and theerroneous character of the other were brought intojuxtaposition in the school itself. I therefore say that inlaying down in article 22 (1) that in State institutionsthere shall be no religious instruction, we have in myjudgment travelled the path of complete safety.

Now, with regard to the second clause I think it hasnot been sufficiently well-understood. We have tried toreconcile the claim of a community which has startededucational institutions for the advancement of its ownchildren either in education or in cultural matters, topermit to give religious instruction in such institutions,notwithstanding the fact that it receives certain aid fromthe State. The State, of course, is free to give aid, isfree not to give aid; the only limitation we have placed isthis, that the State shall not debar the institution fromclaiming aid under its grant-in-aid code merely on theground that it is run and maintained by a community and notmaintained by a public body. We have there provided also afurther qualification, that while it is free to givereligious instruction in the institution and the grant madeby the State shall not be a bar to the giving of suchinstruction, it shall not give instruction to, or make itcompulsory upon, the children belonging to other communitiesunless and until they obtain the consent of the parents ofthose children. That, I think, is a salutary provision. Itperforms two functions....

Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of clarification, whatabout institutions and schools run by a community or aminor ity for its own pupils--not a school where allcommunities are mixed but a school run by the community for its own pupils?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If my Friend Mr.Kamath will read the other article he will see that once aninstitution, whether maintained by the community or not,gets a grant, the condition is that it shall keep the schoolopen to all communities. That provision he has not read.

Therefore, by sub-clause (2) we are really achievingtwo purposes. One is that we are permitting a communitywhich has established its institutions for the advancementof its religious or its cultural life, to give suchinstruction in the school. We have also provided thatchildren of other communities who attend that school shallnot be compelled to attend such religious instructions whichundoubtedly and obviously must be the instruction in thereligion of that particular community, unless the parentsconsent to it. As I say, we have achieved this doublepurpose and those who want religious instruction to be givenare free to establish their institutions and claim aid fromthe State, give religious instruction, but shall not be in aposition to force that religious instruction on othercommunities. It is therefore not proper to say that by thisarticle we have altogether barred religious instruction.Religious instruction has been left free to be taught andgiven by each community according to its aims and objectssubject to certain conditions. All that is bared is this,that the State in the institutions maintained by it whollyout of public

funds, shall not be free to give religious instruction.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: May I put the honourableMember one question? There is, for instance, an educationalinstitution wholly managed

by the Government, like the Sanskrit College, Calcutta.There the Vedas are taught, Smrithis are taught, the Gita istaught, the Upanishads are taught. Similarly in severalparts of Bengal there are Sanskrit Institutions whereinstructions in these subects are given. You provide inarticle 22(1) that no religious instruction can be given byan institution wholly maintained out of State funds. Theseare absolutely maintained by State funds. My point is, wouldit be interpreted that the teaching of Vedas, or Smrithis,or Shastras or Upanishads comes within the meaning of areligious instruction? In that case all these institutionswill have to be closed down.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Well, I do not knowexactly the character of the institutions to which my FriendMr. Maitra has made reference and it is therefore quitedifficult for me.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Take for instance theteaching of Gita, Upanishads the Vedas and things like that in Government Sanskrit Colleges and schools.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: My own view is this,that religious instruction is to be distinguished fromresearch or study. Those are quite different things.Religious instruction means this. For instance, so far asthe Islam religion is concerned, it means that you believein one God, that you believe that Pagambar the Prophet isthe last Prophet and so on, in other words, what we call "dogma". A dogma is quite different from study.

Mr. Vice-President: May I interpose for one minute? AsInspector of Colleges for the Calcutta University, I used toinspect the Sanskrit College, where as Pandit Maitra isaware, students have to study not only the University coursebut books outside it in Sanskrit literature and in factSanskrit sacred books, but this was never regarded asreligious instruction; it was regarded as a course inculture.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: My point is, this. It is not a question of research. It is a mere instruction inreligion or religious branches of study.

I ask whether lecturing on Gita and Upanishads would beconsidered as giving religious instruction? ExpoundingUpanishads is not a matter of research.

Mr. Vice-President: It is a question of teachingstudents and I know at least one instance where there was aMuslim student in the Sanskrit College.

Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of clarification, does myfriend Dr. Ambedkar contend that in schools run by acommunity exclusively for pupils of that community only,religious education should not be compulsory?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is left to them.It is left to the community to make it compulsory or not.All that we do is to lay down that that community will nothave the right to make it compulsory for children ofcommunities which do not belong to the community which runsthe school.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: The way in which you haveexplained the word "religious instruction" should find aplace in the Constitution.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I think the courtswill decide when the matter comes up before them.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: The honourable Member hasproposed to accept the deletion of clause (3). It is anexplanatory note. I would ask if its deletion will rule outthe application of the principle contained therein evenapart from the deletion.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Well, the view thatI take is this, that clause (3) is really unnecessary. Itrelates to a school maintained by a community. After schoolhours, the community may be free to make use of it as itlikes. There ought to be no provision at all in the Constitution.

Now, Sir, there is one other point to which I wouldlike to make reference and that is the point made by Prof.K. T. Shah that the proviso permits the State to continue togive religious instruction in institutions the trusteeshipof which the State has accepted. I do not think really thatthere is much

substance in the point raised by Prof. Shah. I think he will realise that there have been cases whereinstitutions in the early part of the history of thiscountry have been established with the object of givingreligious instruction and for some reason they were unableto have people to manage them and they were taken over bythe State as a trustee for them. Now, it is obvious thatwhen you accept a trust you must fulfil that trust in allrespects. If the State has already taken over theseinstitutions and placed itself in the position of trustee,then obviously you cannot say to the Government thatnotwithstanding the fact that you were giving religiousinstruction in these institutions, hereafter you shall notgive such instruction. I think that would be not onlypermitting the State but forcing it to commit a breach oftrust. In order therefore to have the situation clear, wethought it was desirable and necessary to introduce theproviso, which to some extent undoubtedly is not inconsonance with the original proposition contained in sub-clause (1) of article 20. I hope, Sir, the House will findthat the article as it now stands is satisfactory and may beaccepted.

Mr. Vice-President: I am now putting the amendments tovote one after another. First of all, I put the firstalternative in amendment No. 640.

The question is:

"That for article 22, the following be substituted :--

`22. No person attending an educational institution maintained, aided or recognised by the State shall be required to take part in any religious instruction in such institution without the consent of such person if he or she is a major or without the consent of the respective parent or guardian if he or she is a minor'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Next we come to No. 641 as amendedby No. 19 of list No. 1. I shall first put No. 19 of listNo. 1.

The question is:

"That for amendment No. 641 of the List of Amendments,the following be substituted :--

`That clauses (1) and (3) of article 22 be deleted'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put amendment No. 641.

The question is:

"That for article 22, the following be substituted :--

`22. The State shall not compel anyone to have religious instruction in a religion not his own in schools against his wishes, but the State shall endeavour to develop religious tolerance and morality among its citizens by providing suitable courses in various religions in schools'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is amendment No. 647.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 22, after the words `inany educational institution wholly' the words `or partly' beadded."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Now amendment No. 643.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 22, after the words`shall be provided' the words `or permitted' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is No. 644.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 22, the word`educational' be omitted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is No. 645.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 22, the words `by theState' be omitted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is the No. 646.

The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 22, the words, `by theState' and the words `wholly maintained out of State funds'be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is No. 653.

The question is:

"That at the end of the proviso to clause (1) ofarticle 22, the following be inserted :--

`and the income from which trust or endowment is sufficient to defray the entire expenditure of such institution'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is 658.

The question is:

"That in clause (2) of article 22, the words`recognised by the State or' be deleted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is No. 661. This

hasbeen accepted.

The question is:

"That clause (3) of article 22 be omitted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is No. 662.

The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 22, for the word`providing' the words `being permitted `to provide' be substituted and after the words `educational institution'the words `in, or' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The last one is 664.

The question is:

"That in clause (3) of article 22, for the words`outside its working hours', the following be substituted :--

`maintained by that community from its own funds provided that no educational institutions, nor any education or training imparted, therein shall be recognised unless it provides instruction or training in courses laid down for public instruction in the regular system of education for the country and complies in all other respects with methods, standards, equipment and other requirements of the national system of education'."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That article 22, as amended, stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 22, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

(Amendment No. 666 was not moved.)

Article 22A (New Article)

Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I beg to move:

"That after article 22, the following new article be inserted :--

`22-A. All privileges, immunities or exemptions of heads of religious organisations shall be abolished'."

It may not be, perhaps, very commonly known that Heads ofReligious organisations are in the enjoyment of certainextra-territorial or extra-civil privileges. They enjoycivic immunities, privileges or exemptions, which mark themout as a class apart, but which cause in many instancesheavy losses to the public purse, and gravely prejudice public interest.

I do not of course object to the nominal or formalprivilege enjoyed by them of titles, precedence, honorifiesand the like. Some of these Heads of Religion are consideredto be equal in rank to ruling princes. They are accordinglygiven a salute of eleven guns, at their own cost of courseif fired; and are in a position to demand that that honourbe paid to them. As I said just now, I do not object tothat, because each time they ask for such a mark of respect,they would themselves pay for it. But there are immunitiesand exemptions which mark them out as apart from the rest of the citizens of the land; and as such offend the simpleprinciple that all citizens of this country are amongstthemselves equal, without any distinction of rank, or birth,or faith or sex.

This I consider to be objectionable in principle,because the inequality thereby created is of a characterwhich has a direct and material bearing on the rightsguaranteed by the constitution to the citizens. ReligiousHeadship, if it is truly to be so regarded in the spirit in the essence, in which it was conceived, would make theholder of that position entirely apart from...

Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma (United Provinces:General): To whom is the honourable Member proposing to givesuch rights? This is a Chapter on Fundamental Rights. Thisproposal has nothing to do with those rights.

Prof. K. T. Shah: That is for the Chair to say.

Mr. Vice-President: Professor Shah may go on.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I am stating that this is aviolation of the Fundamental Rights granted. I am notasserting any new rights. I would mention one or twoillustrations of such exemptions, which used to be allowed,and which I think are still being allowed, such as for instanceexemption from Income-Tax and Customs Duties on goodsimported from abroad for the use of the religious heads.These exemptions from customs duties under the Sea CustomsAct and the Income-tax Act are claimed by virtue of thetraditional privileges conceded to them as a matter ofcourtesy in a class society. I am not able to tell whatprecisely is the loss that the State has to suffer from thegrant of these privileges to the several Heads of theseveral communities, who have

sufficient fondness foroutside goods or foreign articles to be constantly importingthem on a large scale. Though these are articles of luxury,and though the heads of religious sects have sufficientincome, they escape customs duties, and they demandexemption from income-tax.

Mr. Vice-President: Order: There is too much noiseinside the House.

Prof. K. T. Shah: In that regard also, Sir, I am notable to give the exact amount of loss that this countrysuffers from this source today. In view of the very highlevel of taxation now prevailing on incomes, such exemptedincomes ought to bring in substantial sums. For many Headsof Religion, have usually incomes running into lakhs, evencrores, and, as such, if the same rate of taxation wereimposed on them as on others, if the same manner of taxcollection was adopted with reference to them also; if thesame rigid and exacting technique was followed in regard totax collection from these people, I should imagine thepublic exchequer would benefit very substantially. Under theexisting rate an income of a crore of Rupees will yield atax of Rs. 92 1/2 lakhs; and if there are 10 heads ofreligions like the Aga Khan, they would keep away from thepublic Treasury 9.25 crores or more.

It is not perhaps so much the amount of money which islost to the State by the existence of these privileges andimmunities of the Heads of Religion which may attract yourattention. It is the essentially mundane character, theessentially worldly nature of these privileges, and, may Isay, the consequent degradation of religion by such meanswhich only mean material objects and material prosperitythat ought to be objected to. As such these privileges andimmunities should be disallowed after or on the passing ofthis Constitution. I hope the point appeals to the House andwill be accepted.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 668 and 669 relateto language and script and have therefore to be postponedfor the present.

Shri Damodar Swarup Seth may now move his amendment No.670.

Mr. Z. H. Lari (United Provinces: General): On a pointof order, Sir. The article in respect of which an amendmentwas moved previously is quite different from the articlewhich is sought to be inserted by the later amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: I thought it would save time if the amendments are moved one after another.

Mr. Z. H. Lari: But there cannot be a discussion on twoArticles simultaneously. One article has to be disposed ofbefore another is taken up for consideration.

Mr. Vice-President: Does the honourable Member want todiscuss the thing now?

Mr. Z. H. Lari: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: That can come later.

Mr. Z. H. Lari: But these two are different articlesand the amendments are distinct ones.

Mr. Vice-President: When the honourable Member comes upto speak, he can say that he is discussing such and sucharticle or amendment. Or, if he wants, I can ask Mr. DamodarSwarup to speak later.

Mr. Z. H. Lari: That would be the proper procedure.

Mr. Vice-President: That is right technically. But I would save the time of the House by proceeding in the mannerI have done. I am indifferent whether you start this way or that way.

Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. and Berar: General): May I know whether it is your ruling or Mr. Lari's ruling?

Mr. Vice-President: I know that the honourable MemberMr. Lari will be quite willing to accept my ruling. But I want to please everybody. That is my weakness. Does Mr. Lariabide by my request?

Mr. Z. H. Lari: I bow to your decision, Sir.

Shri Damodar Swarup Seth (United Provinces: General):Sir, I beg to move:

"That the following new article be inserted afterarticle 22 :--

`22-A. The use of religious institutions for political purposes and the existence of political organization on religious basis is forbidden'."

The Draft Constitution very rightly and justlyguarantees to all citizens...

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Article 19 (2) (a)covers this.

Mr. Vice-President: I am told that article 19 (2) (a)covers your point.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Article 19 (2) (a)

regulates orrestricts political or other secular activities associatedwith religion, while Seth Damodar Swarup's amendment forbidsthem altogether. Between a complete taboo and mereregulation there is a lot of difference.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General):There was an amendment to article 19 (2) seeking to add`prohibiting' and the amendment was not accepted by theHouse.

Mr. Vice-President: It practically means the same thingas Seth Damodar Swarup's amendment. I am afraid this thinghas already been covered. I cannot allow it.

Amendment No. 671. This is about cow slaughter. Alreadycovered.

Amendment No. 672 is about language and script. So itmeans that we have only one amendment No. 667, and theobjection of Mr. Lari has been met automatically. AmendmentNo. 667 of Professor K. T. Shah is now for general discussion.

Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I do not see any meaning in Professor Shah's amendment withregard to the fundamental rights. The amendment runs thus :--

"All privileges, immunities or exemptions of heads ofreligious organisations shall be abolished."

To say that such and such a man shall not have such and sucha right is no right given. Therefore I fail to understandwhere the question of fundamental right arises in thisproposal and how it can find a place in the chapter onfundamental rights. This proposal, I beg to submit, is outof place and as such should not find a place in this chapterof the Constitution.

Secondly, I beg to submit that Professor Shah seems to be very much afraid of religion. What is wrong with religionis not the religion itself but its wrong propagation or itspropagation by inefficient or undesirable persons. Religionas such is the basis of all morality, all social and ethicalvalues and all human Institutions. I do not find what is wrong with religionitself. There might be something wrong with religion if it is handled by wrong people, if it is propagated byincompetent people.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam: General): Sir, Ioppose the motion which was moved by my honourable FriendProfessor Shah. I do not understand why he should be so muchagainst religious heads. My honourable Friend, I think,knows that there are provisions in the Civil Procedure Codewhereby even ex-Ministers may be exempted from appearing incourt for some months. In our part of the country there areShatradhikars who are exempted generally speaking fromappearing in any court. It would revolutionise the minds of their disciples if by any chance they are made to appear inany court and give evidence. When Professor Shah is notsaying any word against the privileges which are now enjoyedby some privileged persons like high officials and Ministersof the State, why is he so anxious to curtail the privilegesof heads of religious organisations in the Constitutionitself, instead of allowing it to the discretion of thecourts to extend the exemptions or privileges in some caseswhich are really necessary?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,Sir, the amendment probably is quite laudable in its objectbut I do not know whether the amendment is necessary at all.In the first place, all these titles and so on whichreligious dignitaries have cannot be hereafter conferred bythe State because we have already included in thefundamental rights that no title shall be conferred andobviously no such title can be conferred by the State.Secondly, as my honourable friend is aware perhaps, no suitcan lie merely for the enforcement of a certain title whicha man chooses to give himself. If a certain man callshimself a Sankaracharya and another person refuses to callhim a Sankaracharya, no right of suit can lie. It has beenmade completely clear in Section 9 of the Civil ProcedureCode that no suit can lie merely for the enforcement of whatyou might call a dignity. Of course if the dignity carrieswith it some emoluments or property of some sort, that is adifferent matter, but mere dignity cannot be a ground ofaction at all.

With regard to the amenities which perhaps some of

themenjoy, it is certainly within the power of the executive and the legislature to withdraw them. It is quite true, as myhonourable Friend Mr. Chaudhari said, that in some casessummons are sent by the magistrate. In other cases when theman concerned occupies a bigger position in life, instead ofsending summons, he sends a letter. Some persons, whenappearing in courts, are made to stand while some otherpersons are offered a chair. All these are matters ofdignity which are entirely within the purview of the legislature and the government. If there was any anomaly ordiscrepancy or disparity shown between a citizen and acitizen, it is certainly open both to the legislature and the executive to remove those anomalies. I therefore thinkthat the amendment is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That after article 22, the following new article be inserted :--

`22-A. All privileges, immunities or exemptions of heads of religious organisations shall be abolished'."

The motion was negatived.

Article 23

Mr. Vice-President: We shall now proceed to the nextarticle. The first amendment is No. 673 which is disallowedfor the obvious reason that it practically amounts to anegative vote. Then we come to amendment No. 674.

Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Sir, I beg to move:

"That for article 23, the following article be substituted :--

`23. Without detriment to the spiritual heritage and the cultural unity of the country, which the State shall recognise, protect and nourish, any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof, claiming to have a distinct language, script and culture shall be free to conserve the same'."

Sir, in moving this substitution for the existingarticle No. 23, I am speaking nothing new nor anythingagainst what has been said in article 23. It is a fact andit has been rightly recognised in article 23 that we havedifferent scripts, different languages and even differentcultures in the territory of India and they have beenrecognised and, preserved and they must flourish, but Ishould say, as all roads lead to Rome and ought also to leadto Rome, all these cultures, all these languages and allthese scripts must be taken as a means to a common end,which the State must recognise, nourish and protect. Infact, it has been our desire and it has been the very soulof the birth of our freedom and our resurgence that we mustgo towards unity in spite of all the diversity that hasdivided us. I, therefore, submit to the House that althoughwe have many languages, many cultures, many scripts, manyreligions, it may not yet be impossible for us to find outif there is something common for India bequeathed even fromthe hoary past, which has been running on till today,vitalizing and inspiring us. Just as there is the ocean towhich all the rivers go, to the cultural ocean, to thespiritual ocean that is India, that has been our heritage,all our rivers of culture, language and script, hopes andaspirations must go and from a mighty ocean ever full. Sir,this article 23 which is an article recognis ing diversitymust find out a way for our unity and unless we have thatunity, the state administration or the state rollingmachine, just a rule of external law, cannot bring us tounity. Therefore for a real unity, for a homogeneous unity,and natural unity, we must evolve a certain philosophy, acertain culture, and a certain language which will containand carry everything and still be more than everything andmust at the same time be running from the ageless past to the eternal future. I therefore, submit, Sir, this amendment, which I am suggesting will find favour with theHouse and the House will realize that, without developingthis favour with the House and the House will realize that,without developing this unity which can be brought aboutonly on a very high plane, on the plane where we are one,inspite of the appearance that we are many and in the planeof the heart, which is the home of the spirit and also in the sphere of culture, which we have all been nourishing,there

cannot be a real unity and we will have no realcontribution to the world civilization or the amity of man,his peace and prosperity. I therefore commend this amendmentto the favourable consideration of this House.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): May Isuggest that we keep this amendment for a decisionafterwards or till such time as we decide what shall be thelanguage which will be accepted as the universal languagefor the whole country and which is the script? May I suggestthat this amendment shall stand over?

Mr. Vice-President: Maulana Sahib, I have not been ableto make out what you wish to say. Do you mean amendment No.674 or the whole article?

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: This amendment, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Lokanath Misra says "withoutdetriment to the spiritual heritage and cultural unity of the country which the State shall recognise, etc."Therefore, the question of language and script does notoccur anywhere. It is quite possible to think of culturalunity, though the languages used in different parts of India may be different. So I donot quite see your objection.

Shri Lokanath Misra: What I referred to are our hopesand aspirations, the future to which we will go in ourpilgrimage. I do not say that we do something here and now.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: I think that this amendmentshould stand over as you have decided in the case of manyother amendments. We cannot possible decide this, unless wedecide which will be the language of the whole country andwhich will be the script. How can we say that now?

Mr. Vice-President: This amendment has nothing to dowith the national language or the script. It is quite inorder here.

(Amendment No. 675 was not moved.)

Mr. Z. H. Lari: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move:

"That for clause (1) of article 23, the following be substituted :--

`(1) Minor ities in every unit shall be protected in respect of their language, script and culture, and no laws or regulations may be enacted that may operate oppressively or prejudicially in this respect'."

This amendment which I have moved is not a new motion. It isreally a motion to restore the original decision of this House taken in April 1947. You will remember, Sir, I was notthen a Member, but I find from the reports of the Committee,First series, 1947, that the Committee on Fundamental Rightsreported that this clause should run in the way in which Ihave put. At page 30 of that report, the clause runs thus:

"Minor ities in every unit shall be protected in respectof their language, script and culture, and no laws orregulations may be enacted that may operate oppressively orprejudicially in this respect."

This recommendation of the Committee on Fundamental Rightswas approved by this August House in April 1947. Butcuriously enough, the Drafting Committee.....

Mr. Vice-President: Is it a sub-committee of theFundamental Rights Committee?

Mr. Z. H. Lari: Yes; it was a sub-committee and it wasapproved by this House as well, but the Drafting Committeewhich was charged with the duty of framing the Draft Constitution on the basis of resolutions adopted by this House changed the phraseology and the present sub-clausestands thus now:

"Any section of the citizens residing in the territoryof India or any part thereof having a distinct language,script and culture of its own shall have the right toconserve the same."

The reasons which have led me to move this amendment inorder to restore it to its original condition can be briefly stated.

Sir, I believe it is accepted on all hands thatcultural and educational rights have to be protected and this is the intention of article 23. There can be nogainsaying on that point. The clause as it originally stoodand as it was approved by this House intended to lay downthat no laws, no regulations shall be passed which wouldadversely affect a minor ity in maintaining and fosteringtheir own culture and language. That is to say, no such lawsshall be passed which would nullify a right which was beingconceded to a linguistic minor ity. If the clause were

tostand as I have put it and as the House originally approved,the result would be that there will be adequate remedy atthe disposal of a minor ity, to see that the intentions ofthis House are carried into effect. But, if you look to thelanguage used in the Draft Constitution, it comes to thisonly that the minor ity or a section of the citizens shall be entitled to conserve its own language. What does it mean? What is itseffect? It simply means this that a body of citizens shallbe entitled to use their own language in their privateintercourse. But the question is whether they will beentitled to use their own language in elementary educationgiven it the state expense. No doubt, under another clauseof this article, a minor ity can establish institutions ofits own and by virtue of this clause (1), it will be open tothat minor ity to impart, say, elementary education throughits own mother tongue. But if the State were to establishinstitutions as it would do,--naturally there will be somany minor ities which will not be in a position to startinstitutions of their own--, then the question arises, willit be possible for the minor ity to demand that, in thoseinstitutions which are being established by the State, inpursuance of any legislation, municipal or provincial, whichmakes free elementary education compulsory, elementaryeducation be imparted through the medium of their own language?

An Honourable Member: Impossible.

Mr. Z. H. Lari: There is a voice which says it isimpossible. If it is impossible and if the intention of theHouse is that even while receiving elementary education, itwill not be necessary for the State to make adequatearrangements, then, my submission would be that the wholeclause will be a paper transaction and nothing more. Anyway, at present I am drawing the attention of the House toits own decision and beg of them to consider whether thereis any reason why their decision, arrived at after dueconsideration, should be set at nought. If the language werean improvement on the original clause, I would necessarilysubmit that improvement is permissible. But the question is,does the changed phraseology of this clause improve on theintention of the House, does it give effect to the intentionof the House, or does it nullify the intention of the House?For the time being, I would request the Members toconcentrate on this point. If it be the opinion of Dr.Ambedkar that really by the changed and differentphraseology, the intentions, the import of that article arenot changed and the same remains, then I have no objection.But my submission is this: the clause as it stands becomesinnocuous: it is of no effect at all. It states a truism; it is not a fundamental right at all. Who can prevent anyminor ity or any class of citizens from using their ownculture and language to the extent that it is possible for them to do so irrespective of legislation or regulation thatmay be made by the State? The House will recognise that thefield of education will be entirely covered by stateinstitutions and unless the old clause is put in, I thinkthere will be great difficulty. This is not the only placewhere such a clause was sought to be placed on the statutebook. I may refer to article 113 of the German Constitutionwhich runs like this:

"Sections of the population of the Reich speakinganother language may not be restricted whether by way oflegislation or administration in their free racialdevelopment. This applies specially to the use of theirmother tongue in education as well as in the question ofinternal administration of administration of justice."

Therefore, it is not a new thing that this House hasdone, or the Committee on Fundamental Rights had proposed.Considering the import of this article, my submission wouldbe that the original clause should be restored and thischanged phraseology should not be accepted by this House.

With these words, Sir, I move.

Mr. Vice-President: The House stands adjourned till 10A. M. tomorrow.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onWednesday, the 8th December, 1948.